What is the best DVD encoder?

[ranrobertcanada]

I want to convert few DV home videos to DVD. What is the best encoder that I can use so that I will get the best quality? I really don’t care about the encoding time. Thank you.

[guns1inger]

I use mainconcept's standalone mpeg encoder and am happy with the high quality of results it provides. It is also pretty fast. Others to look seriously at include CCE (CinemaCraft Encoder) and Canopus ProCoder, both of which have very good reputations.

All of these are expensive though. CCE has a basic version for around US$60.

If you have an editor, chances are that it has some encoding capabilities built in. Look at these before spending extra money. Vegas and Premiere Pro both use Mainconcept to encode directly off the timeline for great results.

Having a good encoder is only part of the picture. You can get crap quality from the best encoder if you don't know what you are doing, and can get good results from an average encoder if you do.

[ZippyP.]

To add to the above, TMPGEnc is also popular.

[rkm69]

Procoder Express is a cut down version of Procoder.
It just has less features.
Excellent results for less money.

[Yuran]

www.kvcd.net
Without a doubt the best encoder is D.I.K.O along with Freenc. Awsome results! Try it!

[Edmund Blackadder]

Canopus ProCoder 1.5 (not 2.0) is the best consumer encoder you can get for DV to DVD conversion. Unfortunately, the now available version 2.0 is not nearly as good in MPEG2 encoding quality as version 1.5 was. So if you can get hold of 1.5 that would be my recommendation.

For the other sources, like uncompressed video, CinemaCraft SP is quite nice and competes with ProCoder like equals, but for DV source there's simply no better software encoder than ProCoder 1.5.

For DV to DVD encoding I've tried:
CinemaCraft SP 2.50
CinemaCraft SP 2.67
MainConcept 1.4.1
TMPGEnc
Heuris
Ligos
bbMPEG

I was almost ready to give up on this whole self-produced DVD thing because the quality of every encoder's MPEG2 output was far below the DV source's quality. It was all unsatisfactory.

That was until I've tried the initial release of ProCoder. I was immediately impressed, and with version 1.5 I think they hit it as good as it could ever get with DV to MPEG2 coversion. With 2.0 it went downhill.

At high bitrates, especially in CBR, ProCoder 1.5's output is virtually identical in side-by-side comparison with the original DV footage when viewed on TV. None other encoder was able to achieve it for me. Even on lower bitrates, especially in VBR mode, ProCoder 1.5 is still excellent, while other encoder's images are literally falling apart. So, forget about widely popular TMPGEnc, CinemaCraft or MainConcept encoders if quality as good as the original DV source matters the most. Get ProCoder 1.5, if you can. You won't be disappointed. It also got the best available software NTSC<->PAL conversion engine I've ever seen.

P.S.: As for the DV codec for editing and rendering, I use MainConcept 2.4.4 codec and it's great. In that area MainConcept shines.

[DaveS]

@Edmund Blackadder - just curious, why do you say that about procoder 2.0 vs. 1.5, e.g. what do yout think changed in the 2.0 version..I have the 1.5 and didn't bother to upgrade..

[Edmund Blackadder]

@Edmund Blackadder - just curious, why do you say that about procoder 2.0 vs. 1.5, e.g. what do yout think changed in the 2.0 version..I have the 1.5 and didn't bother to upgrade..

DaveS,

Here's what I like about ProCoder 2.0:

1) Many new formats supported, including HDTV resolutions.

2) A little faster than 1.5 at Mastering Speed.


Here's what I don't like about ProCoder 2.0 (as compared to 1.5):

1) Does not work on Windows 98SE. (good thing I have a dual boot with WinXP)

2) Saving a target became a lot more hassle, where you have to specify the target folder and everything will go only into that folder. If you try to save the target file elsewhere without changing the target folder (that's an extra step) it will give you an error.

3) In MPEG2 DVD preset if you try to specify audio as PCM it will automatically decrease the video bitrate to a legal DVD+PCM level. It's like Canopus forgot that quite a few people use external AC3 encoders so the PCM overhead should not be an issue. So if you want to have a video bitrate of let's say 9500kbps + audio AC3 bitrate of 224kbps it's impossible, unless you go through another minor hassle of unlocking ProCoder 2.0 from MPEG2 DVD preset into Generic MPEG2 (or something like that, I don't remember exactly). If you don't unlock it won't let you encode MPEG2 at 9500kbps with PCM audio, it will automatically lower it to something under 9000kbps. It's fixable, but still an annoyance that did not exist in version 1.5.

4) And this is the most important part. The MPEG2 video encoding quality dropped down significantly. The very slight improvement in the mosquito noise area had to compromise something else, and this something else now is the background images. The backgrounds, such as walls, pavement and other boring, but still somewhat textured objects simply look bad in ProCoder 2.0. That's especially noticeable during the movement and zooming. Even on high bitrates they feel unnatural, have this annoying every half a second motion pulse that you've probably seen on some poorly coded low bitrate commercial DVD's. In version 1.5 the backgrounds looked almost as nice and lively (but not busy and noisy, like in CCE SP) as on the DV tape, and no pulsating effect. In version 2.0 it's no longer like that. Also, on low bitrates like 4000kbps and below, the blocking, especially on backgrounds, is actually quite noticeable. I've never seen this in version 1.5.

While the MPEG2 output of ProCoder 2.0 is still miles better that the encoders mentioned in my previous post, it's quite a disappointment compared to ProCoder 1.5.

If you don't believe me, I could send you some short samples comparing both ProCoders. Just let me know where to send.

[lordsmurf]

Express has a lot of errors too, in regard to WAV+M2V (error, crashes) or with MPEG Generic (does NOT make sequence headers like older versions!).

I'm not sure if these are present in 2.0 as well.

[DaveS]

@Edmund Blackadder - just curious, why do you say that about procoder 2.0 vs. 1.5, e.g. what do yout think changed in the 2.0 version..I have the 1.5 and didn't bother to upgrade..

DaveS,

Here's what I like about ProCoder 2.0: ... <snip>

wow...boy am I glad I didn't upgrade! I really like the 1.5 encoding quality..I'm actually surprised they would have done that on purpose..I had very few problems if any on mosquito noise w/ 1.5...I may check the canopus forum if I get a chance ... have they acknowledged anything in that area? Are others talking about it?

and on the ac-3, I do all my encoding in ac3 in vegas so what you say they did sounds like a pain

anyway, great info..thanks.......

[Suntan]

What do you guys think about the quality of QuEnc or FreeEnc?

It is freeware, FWIW.

-Suntan

[chotoboto]

Try avidemux (with ffmpeg codec). I had used many encoders and I think to convert an avi dile to mpg-2 ( DVD, SVCD) avidemux in the ffmpeg mode is quickest and have a very very good quality. In the DVD(alone) mode, has quality but it is slower. AND IT IS FREEEEE.

[Suntan]

@chotoboto

Where can I get some organized detail about avidemux?

I searched around Doom9 but the info on it is quite fragmented.

Unfortunately it does not work with DVD-RB, which I like to use.

-Suntan

[RottenFoxBreath]

you know ,strange as it may sound,i tried "dvdsanta" and it did a remarkable job on my dads old speedboat dv.
it never really took that long and teh quality was very good.

[chotoboto]

This is the oficial site: http://avidemux.berlios.de

If you are going to use it in windows, in the forums of that page ( http://avidemux.berlios.de/forum/ ) , in the windows sub-forum you can find the latest versions for windows. I am using this version now:

http://fixounet.free.fr/avidemux/win32/avidemux_cvs_26_sep.zip

There isa more recent version, but it has some errors, this one works perfect to me.

[lordsmurf]

Free encoders are never as good as commercial ones.

[Suntan]

Thanks lordsmurf for that informative and useful reply, but my question was more to the effect of what do you think are the merits/downsides of them compaired to the commercial encoders.

Your offhand and flippent response leads me to believe two things 1) you haven't even tried either of them 2) you don't feel your time should be waisted on anyone that doesn't care about encoding enough to do it right (IE spend money on it)

Thankyou for the Elitist view, in the future if do not feel like adding anything meaningful in the form of a reply feel free to skip over the post.

Finally, I am sorry for sullying an otherwise highbrow discussion of ligitimate encoders with my crude speak of free encoders.

-Suntan

[lenti_75]

...and something else about Procoder 2 that I don't like....if teh source is non interlaced, teh target should leave it as non interlaced. You can do this in 1.5, BUT you have to interlace it in 2.0...this is BS, you can't change this option, is eiher upper or lowwer field first.

I reallly like the 1.5, did not have enough time to play with 2.0, especially about quality. Good to know.

and they have the DIvx encoder, which...don't know, somehow does not work as good as even free encoders, I was shocked.

[ranrobertcanada]

Thank you guys for all you reply I will try Canopus ProCoder 1.5. Hope I will get the best results. Thank YOu!

Ranjith

[DaveS]

Thank you guys for all you reply I will try Canopus ProCoder 1.5. Hope I will get the best results. Thank YOu!

Ranjith

you're going to have to find someplace like ebay or elsewhere to buy it..official release is 2.x

[lordsmurf]

Thanks lordsmurf for that informative and useful reply, but my question was more to the effect of what do you think are the merits/downsides of them compaired to the commercial encoders.

Your offhand and flippent response leads me to believe two things 1) you haven't even tried either of them 2) you don't feel your time should be waisted on anyone that doesn't care about encoding enough to do it right (IE spend money on it)

Thankyou for the Elitist view, in the future if do not feel like adding anything meaningful in the form of a reply feel free to skip over the post.

Finally, I am sorry for sullying an otherwise highbrow discussion of ligitimate encoders with my crude speak of free encoders.

-Suntan

Most of the free ones are all based on similar sourcecode is why I can make a blanket statement like that.

[Suntan]

Again lordsmurf if you don't want to answer the question, then just don't reply. I am fully aware that both QuEnc and FreeEnc are based off of the avcodec. My question was if anybody could compair the merits of them to comercial offerings.

Nevermind, I found detailed comparisions between the various encoders on Doom9. Deffinitely more insitefull than replies like: look at CCE and Procoder, they have good reputations and they are pretty fast.

-Suntan

[DaveS]

Again lordsmurf if you don't want to answer the question, then just don't reply. I am fully aware that both QuEnc and FreeEnc are based off of the avcodec. My question was if anybody could compair the merits of them to comercial offerings.

Nevermind, I found detailed comparisions between the various encoders on Doom9. Deffinitely more insitefull than replies like: look at CCE and Procoder, they have good reputations and they are pretty fast.

-Suntan

can you post a link to what you found?

[Suntan]

@DaveS

Here is one and Here is another.

Here is a long thread talking about libavcodec improvements that has compairisions to CCE and Procoder.

There was another one that was good, but I can't find it.

-Suntan

[DaveS]

thanks - I guess they have a mandatory 'cool down' period...I registered but can't post a reply for 5 days!! I suppose it's for a good reason


was going to ask @insertdisk what version of procoder was tested (2.0 or 1.5). thanks for the link